Sir,

Are you sure of the figures you are quoting ( 5 million)? If you are correct, then there must have been something wrong with the history I learnt in school here in India.
But I am still not convinced that ‘commerce’ was the motive of the Americans in the war as you suggest, maybe its because of my own conservative mindset.

Anyway, I stand corrected if I am wrong.

But I am still convinced that the world can expect a better deal from the US, UK, and the Aussies rather than any other group of nations when it comes to policing and maintaining law and order across the world.

Ravi Kumar,
Chennai City,
India

2. Iran is relatively tolerant and democratic compared to the countries around it. They are Indo-European peoples, not so dissimilar to (most of) us.

3. Mr Kumar,
(a) There were not 5 million deaths of white men in the civil war. There were about 31 million people total in the USA/CSA at the start of the war, of whom maybe 14 million were White men. Therefore, you just suggested a death rate of 36% of white men of all ages.

(b) The Civil War was also fought for economic profit. No, I am not referring primarily to the slave owners, though they shared some fault. The military offensive was first launched by the USA, by a Republican Party aligned to a mercantilist-industrial capitalism. The purpose was economic domination over the agricultural territories, not necessarily freedom for Blacks to go slave away at dirty factories without ANY semblance of social security, although the latter was a bi-product and one that caused fear among the Northern white working class both during and after the war.

Do you know during the American Civil War 5 million white men died to liberate 2 million black slaves. Do you know that that the Delawares and Mingos fought along the English and French armies, and naturally made enemies of the white man?

Look buddy, we all make mistakes, but atleast the Americans realise their mistakes and know how to rectify them.

WAY TO GO NEAL, ALL RIGHT THINKING PEOPLE ARE WITH YOU.

Ravi Kumar,
Chennai City,
India

If separation of church and state is good for us, let’s ask for it world-wide!

I only write enough to make my points. That, and nothing more.

The history of the US, whether or not tolerant, does not tell anyone whether Iran has a tolerant history. To be clear: your reply is a form of the logic error called tu quoque. My point was about Iran. That point is not addressed by telling me about the nature of the US. That is simple logic. Try learning some.

– Norman Pod-whore-etz

who’s currently attending a Judeo-Christian-Armageddonist Thanksgiving ceremony on the White House lawn,
featuring fainting, hysterical, neo-Nazi torch-light orgies designed to invoke the Triple Corporate Shamens of …

a. Manifest Destiny,
b. Free [meaning monopoly] Ennerprize,
[and as a climactic, Wagnerian finale...]
c. WORLD WAR THREE …!

ALL this at OUR expense…
[if anyone survives long enough to pick up the tab...]

Neal, I fear, will flunk out of Professor Leuup’s classes,
and may not be returning to this thread…[?]

Ekosmo,

My points about Bush were that he was no democrat but that it was not our business to overthrow him.

My point about US is that it has a particularly intolerant history, even by the history of that part of the world.

Readers will observe how the normally verbose and long-winded Neal – in his brief and most uncharacteristic 2-sentence riposte [above] — squirms, evades, prevaricates — then finally backs off from witch-hunting “the Professor… ”

before your next class assignment Neal,
you and Prof Leupp should perhaps sit down and discuss “intolerant” notions of US-sponsored geo-political lawlessness,
– or Black and Amerindian “intolerant” holocausts,
– or the “intolerant” pantheon of Judeo-Christian “demagogues” and “strong men” killer-whores — mass-produced in this “intolerant part of the world”,
– or whatever other sheer arrogant hypocritical chauvinist drivel you write on these pages Neal …

no doubt you’ll both benefit from a quiet talk re. exactly who “wants it both ways…”

you may even be assigned to write a paper Neal — on
“Why there’s no Cherokees in Georgia” …!

My points about Mossadegh were that he was no democrat but that it was not our business to overthrow him.

My point about Iran is that it has a particularly intolerant history, even by the history of that part of the world.

Neal writes:

“the evil Shah…” [who Neal has “no brief for”] “was oppressive ”

However — Hey Presto — on the other hand, “the evil Shah… was, by far, the most tolerant ruler…”
says Neal, a confused, if unacknowledged expert on Persian history [so unlike “the Professor who wants it both ways”...]

but Neal knows a sure-fire slam dunk when he sees one —
“I also have no brief for proclaiming what was non-existent in Iran, namely, a real democracy.”

by now we can conclude that Neal is a “real democrat” – with a twinge of moral conscience too — as he goes on to write,
“it was not our place to overthrow Mossadegh”

but nevertheless ‘WE’ did “overthrow Mossadegh” Neal – and, in an act of sublime “democratic choice”, Iran got who ‘WE’ — the planet’s ubermenschen — chose…!

Moreover, Neal tells us how these “real democrats” in “the West helped to stir up public discontent” [er… Neal’s euphemism for 'regime change' – 1951 variant]

So Neal becomes an apologist for the “public discontent” — [aka 'regime change'] — the “real democrats” did their utmost to “stir up”… presumably because “Mossadegh was just another of demagogue looking to be a strong man.” [sic]

Yup, that Mossadegh – he was just so, so utterly unlike ‘OUR’ — the Judeo-Christian “West’s” — pantheon of “demagogue[s] looking to be strong men” – viz.
Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Ben Gurion, Truman, Franco, Battista, Johnson, Meir, Samoza, Nixon, Pinochet, Begin, Reagan, Shamir, Bush [1 and 11], Peres, Sharon, Blair, or similar whores we could mention…

Finally, “Iran does not have much of a history of tolerant rule…”
says Neal — [now a fully mutated ‘real’ democrat and a ‘real’ historian of note with his expertise spanning “a thousand years of Persian rule”... again so unlike "the Professor" who “wants it both ways”]

Here one is left to compare and contrast Neal’s potted history of Persia with the 250-plus years of “tolerant rule” that “a real democracy” meted out domestically to a Cherokee, or a Sioux, or an Apache, or to a black slave, or their offspring —
or to the geo-politically “regime-changed” governments of Guatemala [1954], Vietnam [1954-76], Chile [1972], Iraq [2003] et al, et al, et al…

Re-read your post Neal. Depending upon the confused, contradictory political points you make here…you want it both ways…

PS: I wonder why there have been no Cherokees in Georgia for centuries. The reason is that they were uprooted pretty much in their entirety — as were many millions of Amerindians killed by invaders claiming to be acting in the name of Christianity…!

On Friday, a declaration signed by a list of distinguished American and European academics highlighted the “grave danger” to the heritage of Iraq and called on all governments to respect the international protocol protecting cultural property in armed conflict…It’s hardly surprising that these concerns are not first priority for politicians or soldiers in the midst of battle but archaeologists and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic believe that once the dust of battle clears, the importance of this irreplaceable heritage in rebuilding Iraq’s identity as a nation and as an economic factor in developing tourism will become clear. The fate of Ur and thousands of other sites will become part of the wider culture war in the Middle East, which it is by no means clear that Britain and the US are winning.

Either the US ought or ought not intervene. Either the US should stay in or get out. Re-read your article. You want it both ways, depending upon the political point you are making in a particular part of the article.

Moreover, notwithstanding the evil Shah – and he certainly was oppressive -, he was, by far, the most tolerant ruler in more than a thousand years of Persian history as Iran does not have much of a history of tolerant rule.

So, yes, it was not our place to overthrow Mossadegh – a man who, by the way, also did not respect democratic rule but, in fact, was in the process of seizing power when the West helped to stir up public discontent that, in fact, was already brewing because he was seizing power. So, it is not as simple as you would have it.

Now, I have no brief for the Shah. But, I also have no brief for proclaiming what was non-existent in Iran, namely, a real democracy. Mossadegh was just another of demagogue looking to be a strong man.

Also missing from your note is why there have been no Buddhists in Afghanistan for centuries. The reason is that they were massacred pretty much in their entirety, as in many million of them were killed by invaders claiming to be acting in the name of Islam. So, we have people of one faith that displaced, by a genocidal massacre of historic proportions, people of another faith.

We certainly do not know what Mullah Omar had in mind. We do know, however, that his later time in rule was dominated by extreme religious prejudice against non-Muslims and he was moving to force non-Muslims to wear special identifying clothing. In that period, he also decided that he would remove a symbol of another religious heritage, which is entirely consistent with people looking to force non-Muslims to wear special clothing to denote their faiths.

I might also suggest you consider that, notwithstanding the religious fanatics who want to seize power again in Afghanistan, the Afgani people want something a bit different. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071018.wafghanpoll1810/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

According to the article: 51% of Afghans indicate that their country is heading in the right direction; 59% claim, for whatever reason, that President Hamid Karzai represents their interests; 60% of them assert that the foreign presence in place since the fall of the Taliban has been a good thing; 60% of Afghans believe they are better off today than five years ago; 64% of them say that foreign countries are doing a good job in their fight against the Taliban; 65% claim that foreign countries are doing a good job with respect to providing reconstruction assistance; 71% say they have a very or somewhat positive view of the Afghan government; 73% claim that women are better off now than under the Taliban; and, last but not least, 84% of Afghans claim they have some or a lot of confidence in their country’s army.

That suggests that the US invasion of Afghanistan is not seen as such a bad thing by most Afghans. I thus suggest that your theory is not such a good one after all.

First why western writers and journalists equate all of the Pashtuns with Taliban? Taliban is not our product, Pashtun culture is liberal in its contents and practices, we as a Pashtuns have liberal values and traditions, and all of us are not Taliban.

The main question is who produced Taliban? the answer is United States and its allies. When you are not providing education and when you are not investing on human resource development such things will happen. General Parvez Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator is the close ally of US and the US has accepted him with all his wrongdoings and anti-people and anti-democracy policies.

Gary Leupp has also written that Osma bin Laden or Mullah Muhammad Omer may be hiding in swat valley, this is just an assumption. We ourselves dont want even to see the faces of these two CIA agents. We want to live according to our own cultural values of peace, harmony and love for humanity.

Please try to know crux of the issue, dont generalize things and please please dont say that all of the Pashtuns are Taliban.